- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:18:44 -0500
On 2/21/10 7:11 PM, Dean Edwards wrote:
> Why not just extend :empty to include <input> with no value?
Because that's not backwards-compatible and in fact violates the current
CSS spec?
> It reads nicely:
>
> input[required]:empty:after {
> content: "This value is required";
> color: red;
> }
1) :after is not defined for replaced elements (which <input> is).
Conforming CSS2.1 user agents do a variety of things here, ranging from
not rendering such content at all to making it a sibling of the thing
being styled instead of a child.
2) input[required]:empty is defined to match any input which has an
attribute named "required" and no kids in the DOM. It does NOT match an
input which has kids in the DOM.
So today, input[required]:empty would match:
<input required value="This is some value">
in an HTML document and would not match the perfectly doable
<input required="required" value="This is some value">
And some random text, too
</input>
in an XHTML document.
Unless this is in fact a proposal to completely redefine how :empty
matching works in some backwards-incompatible way? Is there evidence
that this won't break existing consumers?
-Boris
Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 17:18:44 UTC